L’étape du Recouvrement en Matière de Recours Collectif : Les Enjeux et les Objectifs Sociaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Quebec, a class action has three stages: (1) authorization, (2) the trial of the questions of law and fact to be dealt with collectively (if authorization is granted), and (3) recovery or individual claims (if the action is maintained and if the collective questions are answered in favour of the plaintiff). Over the years and, in particular, subsequent to the 2003 amendments to Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure, much has been written about the authorization stage, whose criteria are less stringent than in other Canadian jurisdictions. The recovery stage, which has attracted less attention, is a critical step for class action plaintiffs, defendants, and members of the class. This article examines the recovery stage and, more particularly, the principal modes of recovery — which are often subject to confusion — including the circumstances under which they apply and the tendencies in this respect, having regard to the social purpose of class actions. This article also examines, at the recovery stage, the role played by the Fonds d'aide aux recours collectifs and the interaction between the mode of collective recovery and claims for punitive damages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".